Examinator,

I don't understand what you mean by the left-right divide being obsolete. As long as there is inequality, injustice, differences in wealth and influence between nations, and environmental degradation, there will always be a general debate between the Left and right over the extent of intervention or approach to different policy issues.

I mean the third way was merely a cop out to reflect the greater difficulty of centre-left parties in terms of assisting battlers yet ensuring a nation's ongoing economic competitiveness as most Western govts have promoted freer trade.

This does not mean that recent trends will always prevail to the same extent, as ongoing debate between the left and right will hopefully ensure that Aust remains both competitive and compassionate. The disaster of the US financial crisis may even prove to be a definig point of history as certain trends are proving negative as a result of deregulation. If there is a move to greater regulaiton, then it will be the result of left-wing arguments which gnerally support greatewr govt intervention.

One can remain centre-left or centre-right, or even far left or far right, although their grasp of the issues should always be extensive and sophisticated.

I am of the centre-left, if I was to define myself, although I try hard to be balanced and sophisticated.

Spikey,

Point of article is to show why Rudd's rhetoric, as evident in the Monthly, was always rubbish. Though Rudd will move to the left of howard on many issues, he was never going to be dramatically different to howard who Rudd accused of being mean-spirited.

Of course, Rudd has made a difference, but nowhere near as much as he suggested with his 2006 and 2007 rhetoric. He is, at least in my opinion, the greatest con artist of all time in Aust politics (and I have always voted for Labor in the House of Reps thus far).

Who the hell wrote that headline? I like the way you've pre-emptively trashed anything intellectual and insightful the author might have come up with (not much).

Rudd, left? Hahaha. That's a good one. In the end, there's a lot of speculation here, but not much of a concrete nature...

Rudd's a mug.

For once I agree with Examinator: The traditional Left and Right notions don't apply anymore. There's no real leap in logic required there. However statements like this need addressing:

"As long as there is inequality, injustice, differences in wealth and influence between nations, and environmental degradation, there will always be a general debate between the Left and right over the extent of intervention or approach to different policy issues."

The inference here is that the Right is pro-inequality, pro-injustice, pro-differences in wealth etc, while the (halo wearing) Left aren't. That's the most ludicrous statement that's been uttered by the left, and there's been some pure lunacy written on OO by the Left. A-la:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7792

As I mentioned there, the hope of the Left seems to be hinged on notions like:

'... everyone is finally equal... The strong wear weights, the beautiful wear masks and the intelligent wear earpieces that fire off loud noises to keep them from taking unfair advantage of their brains.'

Lunacy.

While I am no fan of Rudd, at least he's distanced himself from 'the Left' (using that term as loosely as possible).

What a lot of punkism; Verbal dribble at its best. Allow a little bit more water to flow before you come to conclusions. We have had 12 yrs of howards ideas, and where did that get us, You would be frustrated pollys; go on and on. It could all be said in 6 lines.
Good to see mr turnbull there [i believe he is a republican ]

BN

What has being of the left and right got to do with voting liberal or labor.

You need to read much more.

There are plenty of people who vote Liberal that will express a so-called left-wing view in terms of race, asylum seekers and so on.

As far as left and right not beign relevant, just ask Turnbull what he is (centre-right).

It is debate over issues from a left and right-wing perspective that leads to a govt being formed by the party which is deemed most capable of representing the eclectic views of many.

You need to get over any suggestion by the left, including myself, that we are for everyone being equal. in fact, I am a die hard supporter of capitalism and democracy (the collective will of the people). Are you?

I also recognise the importance of both the centre-left and centre-right and do not live in a fantasy world looking for new ways of describing or analysing politics. I mean if Marx could not do it, I don't expect you or anyone else to come up with anything better than the concept of liberal democracy that legitimises a variety of views in order to find commonality from debate between the left and right (depending on the issue).

As far as making judgements about Rudd, it is nearly always in one's first term that the most important decisions are made. Read about Thatcher, Reagan, Howard and Hawke.

The article was about highlighting why Rudd's rhetoric has not been matched by policy. If you are happy waiting for a year and half to help pensioners (amongst Aust's most vulnerable citizens), well take note the Liberal Party is not, or maybe you don't read the news.

So bring it on Rudd if you are indeed interested in helping battlers in these tough times as you have stated previously. I, for one, am most interested in battlers rather than the rich, although we must always be careful to ensure that the Aust economy remains competitive.